LI Network
Published on: 16 August 2023 at 15:40 IST
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that if a life convict, who has escaped and is subsequently convicted again, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the original life sentence.
The case in question revolved around the release of a life convict, despite being granted remission by the Andhra Pradesh government, who was not set free due to confusion regarding the calculation of the subsequent sentence.
In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa, the court acknowledged the distinct scenario of an escaped convict. It noted that for an escaped convict, the commencement of the second sentence occurs after they serve the remaining term of their prior conviction.
However, this framework doesn’t seamlessly apply to life convicts, as determining the remaining sentence for a life imprisonment is a complex task.
The court referred to Section 427(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which offers an alternative perspective to address this complexity. This section stipulates that if an individual already serving a life sentence is subsequently convicted, the subsequent sentence should run concurrently with the existing life sentence.
The court found that while this section doesn’t specifically address escaped convicts, it provides a solution for managing the intricacies of perpetual life sentences.The bench comprised Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal.
They noted that Section 426(2)(b) of the CrPC specifically addresses escaped convicts who are subsequently re-apprehended. In such cases, the second sentence only begins after the escaped convict has served an additional period equivalent to the unexpired term of their prior sentence at the time of escape.
However, for life convicts, the concept of “remaining time” is distinct. Unlike other convicts, the rule of measuring remaining time does not fit a life sentence.
The court expressed, “In the case of a life convict, no part of the sentence remains unexpired in the same sense as in the case of other convicts. A life sentence is a sentence for life.”
The judgment intriguingly noted that the notion of what remains unexpired of a life sentence is only known to God (for believers) and the government if there is a policy of remission.
The court concluded that applying Section 427(2) of the CrPC to the case was appropriate. This section, although not directed at escaped convicts, offers a suitable approach to handle subsequent convictions for life convicts. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered the immediate release of the individual in question.
